I know its the better alternative, but at the same time, I feel like such laws should be made at a federal level, than at a county level -- although its not uncommon for some more liberal counties/cities to have non-discrimination statutes based on sexual orientation.

Truth be told, this case gives me a bunch of mixed feelings.

But I'd not want to eat something prepared by someone who hates my guts.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

For now. They're promising to appeal it, but at least this is a good first step.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

If the animal has a proveable IQ level equivalent to whatever limits are currently set in place in order to give consent... and they give it... have at.

This does bring up a question though... obviously marrying children is out of the question... but are there any laws restricting the marriages of mentally handicapped people who have the body of an adult, but the mental acuity of a child? If so... that would be where I'd start the line for marrying animals.

Marriage laws obviously differ a lot across countries, but I've yet to hear of any countries that restrict marriage on base of IQ or other cognitive tests specifically.

Around here these are the criteria;

1) You need to be 2 persons of opposite genders, or of the same gender2) Persons under the age of 18, that are not previously married, cannot enter into marriags without the consent of their parents (guardians), with a caveats about only one parent beeing needed under circumstances that make it difficult to get the consenc of the other3) you cannot be a ward of the state (as in, having been considered legally unable to take care of yourself - this is an reverse competency requirement)4) you cannot marry a relative in direct ascending or descending line, or a sibling5) you cannot have/be adopted by the one you wish to marry, as long as the adopted relationship exists (so you can have it voided, then marry)6) you cannot enter into a new marriage/partnership(holdover) as long as you are currently married/in a registered partnership

There is a further clause to the age requirement, that theyc annot enter into marriage without the consent of the approving authority, and that the approving authority can stipulate that the person under 18 years of age would still be considered a minor, despite being allowed to enter into marriage - this is a thing, because the law on being fully legally competent (the Law of Guardianship), wherein it is stated that Children and young under the age of 18, that have not entered into marriages, are minors, and therefore not legally competent (and goes on to list what requires legal competence, like entering into contracts, and managing their wealth)

Nooska wrote:There is a further clause to the age requirement, that theyc annot enter into marriage without the consent of the approving authority, and that the approving authority can stipulate that the person under 18 years of age would still be considered a minor, despite being allowed to enter into marriage - this is a thing, because the law on being fully legally competent (the Law of Guardianship), wherein it is stated that Children and young under the age of 18, that have not entered into marriages, are minors, and therefore not legally competent (and goes on to list what requires legal competence, like entering into contracts, and managing their wealth)

This is where I get confused... because people with Down's Syndrome or similar, typically have the mental demeanor of a child even beyond the age of 18. Can they legally get married on their own or do they require a guardian to "sign off" on it, as if they were a child? Is the only stipulation "they are chronologically 18 years old, so therefore are capable of deciding for themself if they want to get married."

Edit: In essence, if my final statement is true... then the only reason it's illegal to marry a minor is because they aren't 18 and has nothing to do with competency.

The problem with any kind of competency test is: who decides? An age limit is pretty easy to use in most cases (it's rare that someone's age is unverifiable or fairly obvious). Whereas what ever 'test' you decide to implement would almost certainly be failed by people who are happily married now.

Nooska wrote:There is a further clause to the age requirement, that theyc annot enter into marriage without the consent of the approving authority, and that the approving authority can stipulate that the person under 18 years of age would still be considered a minor, despite being allowed to enter into marriage - this is a thing, because the law on being fully legally competent (the Law of Guardianship), wherein it is stated that Children and young under the age of 18, that have not entered into marriages, are minors, and therefore not legally competent (and goes on to list what requires legal competence, like entering into contracts, and managing their wealth)

This is where I get confused... because people with Down's Syndrome or similar, typically have the mental demeanor of a child even beyond the age of 18. Can they legally get married on their own or do they require a guardian to "sign off" on it, as if they were a child? Is the only stipulation "they are chronologically 18 years old, so therefore are capable of deciding for themself if they want to get married."

Edit: In essence, if my final statement is true... then the only reason it's illegal to marry a minor is because they aren't 18 and has nothing to do with competency.

You are correct, but not quite.There is that reverse competency check. Under the law of guardianship, your legal competency can be restricted or taken away, based on an individual evaluation of whether you are competent. It is not used extensively (and in my opinion too seldomly - being an election monitor the last two elections, if a person shows up and cannot place the mark themselves, and cannot un-ambigously say who/what party they want to vote for because they have no language - how can they be legally competent to enter into contracts etc for themselves? (I know they can do so, because if they had been put under guardianship, they would have lost the right to vote unde rthe same competency criteria).

Though the discussion is, in actuality, identical (not just the same) in regards to voting rights. You cannot have a general voting right and then require a competency test - uit has to be objective, and you cannot disenfranchise a block of people (be that from voting or marrying) because of a diagnosis.In danish law competency checks are reversed, so that it is assumed you are competent, untill thourough review (and possibly trial through the supreme court in the end case scenario, or the ECHR) has determined you are not competent.

So, no, the only basis is chronological age (and the other requirements - there is also something about non-citizens, which, I guess, i based on citizens being known in the system, so non-citizens require further scrutiny, I can't remember off the top of my head (I had the law open during my earlier reply).)

In many places, people under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into a legally binding contract, which marriage is, either altogether or without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. It would be consistent with that not to allow minors to marry.

Marriage is a legal contract that brings with its some rights and priveledges in regards to society.Requiring the (arbitrarily decided) age of majority is a default.

As for living together in a loving partnership, be that 2 people of opposing gender, 2 people of the same gender, 3 or more people of the same or varying genders does not require a legal contract (and thus does not require age of majority, as such*).

Most places you can even live together in a 'loving partnership' with your chosen animal (though most likely in secret) (just to finish that part off, since some of this was from a suit to grant chimps the rights of a legal person - or at least thats how I remember it while typing)

* - there might be guardians that can interfere or laws in regards to when you can enter into a non-platonic relationship, but most places the laws will not be the sticking point if the persons concerned are of equal age. Age of consent is mostly a legal protection for those below it from those that would or could take advantage of the diminished capacities due to immaturity - I have yet to hear of a country (in the west) that actively prosecutes teens for having sexual relations when of equal age (even if below the age of consent)

The situation with Russia greatly underscores the double standards and hypocrisy of the gay rights movement. Oh look at how gays are so fucking special above everything else that goes badly in Russia or east Europe in general ( the corruption, the stealing, the SLAVERY, the mafias controlling entire states etc. ), but Putin makes a law that bans gay "propaganda" and suddenly it's the most important thing in the world making headlines in every major news outlet!

I get it gays have it bad in Russia/East Europe, but no one can come to my face and tell me that thousands of children of being sold ( by their parents no less )/abducted every single fucking year in east Europe ( including in Russia ) to be sold into fucking slavery and having their entire lives destroyed is somehow less important, and yet that issue barely brings up any headlines or the kind of response that the gay rights movements has gotten.

a) first, your own point is going backwards. It's not that it's bad that the LGBT get the limelight while the rest gets to rot, it's bad that other civil rights movement are being ignored. I can understand being pissed about not tackling other issues, but accusing the LGBT of hogging the limelight feels like a rather dick move, because to an extend...

b) I'd blame newcaster more than the LGBT movement for that one, tbh. I'd honestly expect LGBT rights movement to actually, you know, move when LGBT rights are in danger. The fact that news channel have decided this to be "the big news" is just the bottom line - LGBT discussion is hip and generates revenue, while complex discussion about state corruption, its origins and potential paths to couterbalance it would bore the "average" public to death. That's an article for serious journals on complex issues, not mainstream or grassroots. One could minimize the law, but let's not forget it's Russia we're talking about, a land where law interpretation has become an art for the powers that be.

When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

a) first, your own point is going backwards. It's not that it's bad that the LGBT get the limelight while the rest gets to rot, it's bad that other civil rights movement are being ignored. I can understand being pissed about not tackling other issues, but accusing the LGBT of hogging the limelight feels like a rather dick move, because to an extend...

You know what's a dick move? Calling yourself a promoter of human rights ( as many of these LGBT crusaders do ) while not giving a shit about other human rights issues AND promoting the issues gays face as being the most special thing in the world.

Not all activists do this and I am well aware of this fact that some do care about other issues, but these a rarity. I look at the Black Rights movement as a different example where quite a few activists did and still do fight for other civil rights issues. The most notable person who is still alive and doing this is Desmond Tutu who is fighting tirelessly against homophobia, slavery and poverty.

b) I'd blame newcaster more than the LGBT movement for that one, tbh. I'd honestly expect LGBT rights movement to actually, you know, move when LGBT rights are in danger. The fact that news channel have decided this to be "the big news" is just the bottom line - LGBT discussion is hip and generates revenue, while complex discussion about state corruption, its origins and potential paths to couterbalance it would bore the "average" public to death. That's an article for serious journals on complex issues, not mainstream or grassroots. One could minimize the law, but let's not forget it's Russia we're talking about, a land where law interpretation has become an art for the powers that be.

I would argue that anyone who claims to be fighting for human rights while being a very public figure with a lotof sway has a responsibility to fight for other issues as well. Newscasters do actually cover the issue of slavery ( as an example ) but people do not care about it.

You know what's a dick move? Calling yourself a promoter of human rights ( as many of these LGBT crusaders do ) while not giving a shit about other human rights issues AND promoting the issues gays face as being the most special thing in the world.

I'm not sure who you're really trying to address with that. I doubt even a significant portion of "LGBT crusaders" don't give a shit about other human rights issues. Moreover, for them, these issues are simply closer to them, or hit them in an area that is more sensitive due to history/relatability etc., and there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Certainly, the world is better off and more able to handle other human rights issues even if it simply tackles whichever one is popular at the time.

Io.Draco wrote:Not all activists do this and I am well aware of this fact that some do care about other issues, but these a rarity.

I'll tahnk Darielle for restating the obvious, and I'll just add to that little tidbit: [citation needed]

Io.Draco wrote:I would argue that anyone who claims to be fighting for human rights while being a very public figure with a lotof sway has a responsibility to fight for other issues as well. Newscasters do actually cover the issue of slavery ( as an example ) but people do not care about it.

Honestly, it's been *years* since I read or heard something about sweatshops. If I wasn't slightly aware of it due to past exposure, it'd fly right over my head.

Also, to adress the "fair and unbiaised news" bit, I spilled my drink on the screen. I'll be eating raw hats the day major newscaster priotirize according to fairness and information, not hype and market shares. The only group that actually provides fairly unbiased news are general information groups (Belga comes to mind), but whom only bothers with actual new information.

When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Io.Draco wrote:You know what's a dick move? Calling yourself a promoter of human rights ( as many of these LGBT crusaders do ) while not giving a shit about other human rights issues AND promoting the issues gays face as being the most special thing in the world.

So basically unless you are prepared to spend every waking moment solving every human rights issue, you should STFU? That's a load of crap.

There are heaps of human rights issues all over the globe, from Russian slavery to Rwandan genocide to the unfair treatment of native Americans and golf courses that don't allow black members. Solving them all simultaneously is impossible for anyone to do, much less attempt.

By taking your stance, all you are doing is stifling one segment that actually has some traction toward gaining the rights they deserve. It may suck that the other issues aren't getting the attention they need, but solving one issue is still better than solving none.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. You're suggesting if you can't eat the elephant in one bite, you should put down the fork. Ridiculous.

The problem is that this anti-gay law(s) isn't just a human rights 'violation' because it bans you from being gay (good luck with that btw) - its a bigger problem because you are banned from even protesting the human rights violations. So not only do the law violate human rights (whihch, I'll grant, aren't as universal as we like to think in the west), it bans the freedom to speak out against the political opinion, so they reach quite a bit further than being anti-gay; they are anti-democratic (free speech, or rather, the ability to state ones views is fundamental to being a democratic or free system)